Barbara Ehrenreich comments on working in America

February 14, 2008

Unstoppable Obama

When did you begin to think that Obama might be unstoppable? Was it when your
grown feminist daughter started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New
Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with
Confederate monuments and memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two
Republican Virginians in a row called CSPAN radio to report that they’d just
voted for Ron Paul, but, in the general election, would vote for… Obama.

In the dominant campaign narrative, his appeal is mysterious and irrational:
He’s a “rock star,” all flash and no substance, tending dangerously, according
to the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, to a “cult of personality.” At
best, he’s seen as another vague Reagan-esque avatar of Hallmarkian sentiments
like optimism and hope. While Clinton, the designated valedictorian, reaches out
for the ego and super-ego, he supposedly goes for the id. She might as well be
promoting choral singing in the face of Beatlemania.

The Clinton coterie is wringing its hands. Should she transform herself into
an economic populist, as Paul Begala pleaded on Tuesday night? This would be a
stretch, given her technocratic and elitist approach to health reform in 1993,
her embarrassing vote for a credit card company-supported bankruptcy bill in
2001, among numerous other lapses. Besides, Obama already just leaped out in
front of her with a resoundingly populist economic program on Wednesday.

Or should she reconfigure herself, untangle her triangulations, and attempt
to appeal to the American people in some deep human way, with or without a tear
or two? This, too, would take heavy lifting. Someone needs to tell her that
there are better ways to signal conviction than by raising one’s voice and
drawing out the vowels, as in “I KNOW …” and “I BELIEVE …” The
frozen smile has to go too, along with the metronymic nodding, which sometimes
goes on long enough to suggest a placement within the autism spectrum.

But I don’t think any tweakings of the candidate or her message will work,
and not because Obama-mania is an occult force or a kind of mass hysteria. Let’s
take seriously what he offers, which is “change.” The promise of “change” is
what drives the Obama juggernaut, and “change” means wanting out of wherever you
are now. It can even mean wanting out so badly that you don’t much care, as in
the case of the Ron Paul voters cited above, exactly what that change will be.
In reality, there’s no mystery about the direction in which Obama might take us:
He’s written a breathtakingly honest autobiography; he has a long legislative
history, and now, a meaty economic program. But no one checks the weather before
leaping out of a burning building.

Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib
and the “rendering” of terror suspects, we’ve achieved the moral status of a
pariah nation. The seas are rising. The dollar is sinking. A growing proportion
of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year
for lack of health insurance. Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the
financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is
sufficiently “de-coupled” from the US economy to survive our demise.

Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes – and many of them
are admirable ones – but anyone can see that she’s of the same generation and
even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the
first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely
undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss
the internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find
dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it’s a dynasty that produced
so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the
semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words – “same old.”

Obama is different, really different, and that in itself represents “change.”
A Kenyan-Kansan with roots in Indonesia and multiracial Hawaii, he
seems to be the perfect answer to the bumper sticker that says, “I love you
America, but isn’t it time to start seeing other people?” As conservative
commentator Andrew Sullivan has written, Obama’s election could mean the
re-branding of America. An anti-war black president with an Arab-sounding name:
See, we’re not so bad after all, world!

So yes, there’s a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just
because he’s a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white
people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of
whatever race, want a fresh start. That’s what “change” means right now: Get
us out of here!

264 Comments

Dear Barbara--

I just wanted to get in before the crowds to let you know how much I appreciate your books and your activism. Your book, *Bait & Switch*, is a really valuable antidote to *What Color is Your Parachute*. Keep up the good work and happy St. Valentine's Day!

Your article fails to contrast any policy specifics between the two candidates. You mentione Krugman's accusation of a cult of personality, but not his desperate plea for health insurance mandates, which Clinton favours and Obama has demonized. Is Obama more than symbolically superior? Is that enough?

Totally, Barbara! I think that Obama is riding the crest of the THROW DA BUMS OUT wave, and Clinton is, by association, one of DA BUMS. When Obama took Maine and Nebraska (white bread states!!!) I was convinced that he was going places. If American elects a black president, I will have to back-pedal (just a bit) on all my complaining about racist, crappy America. It will just be sexist America from here on.

On an emotional level I agree with you, but as an Obama supporter it worries me that not enough attention is paid to his policies and his careful way of explaining and thinking about what he puts forward (what was criticized as "professorial" early on). I worry that he'll win on emotions, but that many supporters will be surprised by his "other self" (which I actually admire more) and support will wane. I not only want change, I want this change. I trust him to weigh situations and make careful decisions. I never thought I'd trust government again. We'll see (hopefully we'll have the chance to see) if that trust is well-placed.

Ron Paul voters for Obama! It's so funny because it's true. Like Barbara's daughter I've become emotional over this campaign, in a good way. Past campaigns have induced disappointment, despair, or ennui. I never liked Bill Clinton, even if he did a few good things and wasn't a Republican.

So it's really really weird, like we're in some bizarro universe.

McCain's going to run on fear and I don't see how he beats Obama, if he's the nominee. Obama is running on carnivaleque hope and change. Screw fear.

Other Western countries have had female heads of state - Thatcher, Angela Merkel - but has there been a black one? Am I missing an obvious example?

Ron Paul voters for Obama! It's so funny because it's true. Like Barbara's daughter I've become emotional over this campaign, in a good way. Past campaigns have induced disappointment, despair, or ennui. I never liked Bill Clinton, even if he did a few good things and wasn't a Republican.

So it's really really weird, like we're in some bizarro universe.

McCain's going to run on fear and I don't see how he beats Obama, if he's the nominee. Obama is running on carnivaleque hope and change. Screw fear.

Other Western countries have had female heads of state - Thatcher, Angela Merkel - but has there been a black one? Am I missing an obvious example?

You ask us to take Obama seriously, then typify Hillary Clinton's speech patterns as characteristic of the autistic spectrum. Even if it's true ... some of our best and brightest minds are surely high-functioning autistics. Not impressive on your part!

You ask us to take him seriously ... but seriously, if I wanted to hear a sermon, I'd go to church. Where I know that half the congregation are hypocrites and as Hattie alluded ... want to have most everything in life both ways. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, he did at least introduce the word "sacrifice" into discussions of our domestic fate.

I'm as starved for gorgeous prose as the next battered American ... but will take the potential for real results any day.

Perhaps it's because working for both women and men of color is not a novelty for my family. We don't feel an urgent need to make history; our every paycheck is already dependent on the judgments of female and minority male supervisors.

That, and the knowledge that Obama's biggest contributor is Goldman Sachs ... and he is mysteriously mum on proposed financial industry regs.

Barbara, your daughter's tears are thoroughly unimpressive ... it's just a stupid primary after all, in a state full of, frankly, weirdos. Then you go on to mock Hillary Clinton's? Preacher-speak does not a president make.

I don't see any reason to believe the policies and programs advocated by any particular candidate will be carried out once the candidate gets into office. In any case, voters by and large don't choose to make the connection. That leaves personality and showmanship, which gives the advantage to Obama. Regardless, I am pretty sure anyone who is allowed to get anywhere near being elected president has been vetted by the ruling class and found all right on the issues important to them, like continued imperialism abroad and surveillance and repression at home. After all, they do have to control the world. That Obama may be like Kennedy is exactly what his fans should be afraid of.

OK I apologize for the tearful daughter comment, it was over the top. Still Barbara is hardly above reproach ... the autism comment was ignorant at best. I stand by my NH comments b'c in all honesty, I live close to that state and it is full of some very odd people -- survivalism, dog-racing tracks, fireworks and unhelmeted motorcyclists are the order of the day up there. I would hardly hang my fortunes on what NH-ites had to say about anything.

As for Obama vs. Clinton ... couldn't agree w/Anarcissie more. I mean who are we kidding, they hardly represent revolution. I figure the most they'll do will be to than stave off the next get-rich-quick-while-screwing-the-unsuspecting-natives-scheme for a bit. The fact that so many Republicans are enthusiastic about Obama is worrisome in and of itself.

As for the war vote, Obama had far less to lose by casting that vote way back when. Time-travel w/me back to the early 2000s ... courage was hardly in great supply. It's our demonstrated collective hysteria, not one particular candidate's, that's the real issue. That was a time when the pols were truly taking their cue from the masses. We wanted flags and yellow ribbons, and they gave em to us.

Voter turnout at caucuses is often no more than 1% of the registered voters. The voting is more-or-less proportional.

Even if he wins the nomination -- which is far from certain -- he will lose in November.

Why? No Experience. None.

He looks more like a city councilman than presidential timber.

Meanwhile, every goal he has mentioned is prefaced with terms like "Create"; "Develop"; and "Expand".

Those are all synonyms for SPEND. And in most cases, SPEND BIG.

To make matters much worse, he was photographed with his arm around Al Sharpton and the two of them were smiling. Being a Friend of Al's is no way to get white votes.

Moreover, Obama has a connection to Louis Farrakhan. Thus, Obama's links to black nationalism and islam are established and reinforced in a single move.

Lastly, no one named b. HUSSEIN obama is going to preside over the removal of US military forces from Iraq. Voters will be reminded that HUSSEIN is a bad name to have when running for the US presidency. It suggests way too much sympathy for the concerns of muslims, mainly muslims who do not live in the US.

" The effort, he says, was inspired after reading "Nickel and Dimed," in which author Barbara Ehrenreich takes on a series of low-paying jobs. Unlike Ms. Ehrenreich, who chronicled the difficulty of advancing beyond the ranks of the working poor, Shepard found he was able to successfully climb out of his self-imposed poverty. "

I live in NY. Translation: The Democratic Nominee will receive all the NY electoral votes. Period.

You said:

"The rest of us will wait for the actual nomination and election to see if you're right about other people's."

As I said, either Obama will lose the nomination to Hillary, or he will lose the election to McCain. Either way, he does not have the slightest chance of becoming president.

Why? Because his plans include programs for which the spending will only increase, and the programs will run forever.

Thus, your BOMB, BOMB, BOMB concerns lose meaning. Shooting wars don't last long. Moreover, whether you care to admit it or not, the goal of the bombing is to eliminate some nasty players from the world stage. When they are gone, the world will become a more prosperous place, which is better for everyone on the planet.

Meanwhile, Obama the neophyte has shown no insight into increasing global prosperity. But his campaign promises, if carried out, will result in big spending increases for programs that offer little.

The majority of voters will realize this simple truth well before election day.

"Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the “rendering” of terror suspects, we’ve achieved the moral status of a pariah nation."

There's nothing like a little fiction to get that liberal cheering section revved up.

Let's see. Pariah Nation? This Pariah Nation in which we live is the whipping post for such freedom-loving notables as Fidel Castro, Iran's Ahmadinejad, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, and Venezuela's Caesar Chavez. As long as we've pissed off those clowns, cracked-pots and screwballs, we're on the right track.

We're hated so deeply by the nations of the world that they punish by selling $2 TRILLION worth of goods and services to us every year. They show additional contempt by purchasing $1.1 TRILLION of our goods and services. Pure, unalloyed hate!

barb sails on:

"The seas are rising."

Oh, so Biblical. Heavens!

She worries:

"The dollar is sinking."

This doesn't affect people unless they are traveling outside the country or employed in some segments of the importing business.

She sweats:

"A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance."

About 2.4 million Americans die every year. No amount of healthcare would save them. On the other hand, 50 million Americans smoke. Some of them develop cancer and die as a result. Some of them do not have healthcare.

Smokers should stop smoking. That alone would save a lot more than 18,000 lives a year. Moreover, the money they save might equal the cost of a healthcare policy.

More worry:

"Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently “de-coupled” from the US economy to survive our demise."

The financial analysts are wondering ONLY...! Please. Who writes this crap? Worse. Who believes it?

Not because I disagree with any of it, but because I expected you to be perhaps the only prominent woman who could take us past the Maureen-Dowd/Susan-Sarandon spectrum on this election.

I don't disagree with what you say; I'm just TIRED of all these arguments even as I agree with all of them, despite their often contradictory content.

Obama is a symbol of racial healing, yet he only got where he is in life because of white institutions and an ability to "act white." In other words, that he's a sell-out who hasn't transcended race -- he simply doesn't make white people uncomfortable.

It's simultaneously true that, if the most powerful person in the world were a woman, it's hard to get much more feminist than that AND it's true that feminism is about transcending gender so, therefore, women have no obligation to vote for her. Women won the vote to be able to vote for whomever we please.

It's also true that Clinton can never transcend her gender the way Obama can transcend his race because it's simply not possible for a woman to do that. Blacks get social reinforcement for "acting white;" women don't get social reinforcement for "acting male."

A woman who acts like a man is...aggressive, bitchy, overly ambitious, and pretty much every other characteristic attributed to Clinton -- betraying an underlying certainty, even among women, that the presidency really is still a man's job.

Feminists seem to have no more insight into this than anyone else. Perhaps less because, for feminists in particular, Hillary Clinton is a Rorschach test.

To complicate matters further, I agree with both those who are tired of "identity politics" -- of turning the Democratic race into a contest between a Black Man and a White Woman.

Meanwhile, I agree with those who point out that every election is a matter of identity politics, which only becomes noteworthy when the identities are those we're not accustomed to seeing in positions of such power.

When White Men run for president, that's merely normal.

The only common denominator seems to be that of "transcendence." The game we're playing is no longer funny. It's getting kind of scary and everyone's just hoping that, at the next election, the grown-ups will come home and be in charge.

Obama supporters call that "change." Clinton supporters call that "experience." But they're both talking about the same essential desire -- incompetence has gotten scary and it's time for a president who knows what the fuck they're doing.

The identities of the candidates are very tied up in that and yet a sideshow at the same time. I think I expected you to see through that and shed some light on it -- particularly on the absurdity of it.

Because I think what no one has faced yet in Optimistic America is that it's entirely possible -- even likely -- that no one, including any of the candidates in any of the parties, knows how to improve our national and global situation.

The vehemence with which every camp supports its candidate is transparent in its desperation.

Our greatest fear is that no matter who we elect, the grown-ups aren't coming home.

first read this post at Alternet and noted that it was invigorating and reassuring to read the few comments that had come before mine. (almost stopped reading Alternet due to long-winded anger/ vicious rhetoric of many.)

the art of possibility is what obama brings to the contest. yes, his election might be the most important statement-plus-behavior by americans about our wish to move beyond our long-standing racial divide.

as a feminist, i know that it will be harder for a woman to be accepted as a leader in this country. perhaps we can begin by nominating a woman as vice president--not necessarily hillary clinton.

This doesn't affect people unless they are traveling outside the country or employed in some segments of the importing business. ...'

This ignorance of simple economics is breathtaking. The United States is not on a separate planet. It imports a great many things, most notably petroleum. As the dollar falls, the price of petroleum rises, and all Americans who directly or indirectly pay for petroleum products become poorer. The fall of the dollar is the outcome of furious money-printing and borrowing which has gone on for years and years now and can no longer be sustained. Look into history and find out what debasement of the currency, which is essentially what we're seeing here, has done in other places and times. The necessary corrections of the economy are going to be a major problem for whoever is elected this year, whether they're working the "hope" side of the street or the "fear" side of the street.

roger: " The effort, he says, was inspired after reading "Nickel and Dimed," in which author Barbara Ehrenreich takes on a series of low-paying jobs. Unlike Ms. Ehrenreich, who chronicled the difficulty of advancing beyond the ranks of the working poor, Shepard found he was able to successfully climb out of his self-imposed poverty."

It's curious that you (and they) don't appear to consider that there may be a difference between the opportunities made available to an older woman and a young man, especially a White young man. My experience is that for the lower end of the working class, and certain other higher-level jobs (for example, high technology) age prejudice begins kicking in at age 35 or 40 and by 50 or so is of major significance. Gender prejudice is, of course, omnipresent at every age.

I wonder why that didn't occur to you, or the Christian Science Monitor. Any explanation?

Vietnam? That lasted well longer than two presidential terms, as I recall. Maybe people weren't shooting during all of it, then?

"...the goal of the bombing is to eliminate some nasty players from the world stage. When they are gone, the world will become a more prosperous place, which is better for everyone on the planet."

Well, let's see...so far the ratio of dead whose individual roles we don't know to dead "nasty players" is about a million to...how many? A few thousand perhaps? Not to mention 4 million or so internally or externally displaced.

It's now going on five years since "Mission Accomplished." How many more nasty players have to go, with attendant "collateral damage" and our national debt piling up, before the prosperity starts to kick in? (Other than for Haliburton and Blackwater and their ilk,that is.)

"The Democratic Nominee will receive all the NY electoral votes. Period."

I take it, then, you plan to stay home on November 3. I approve wholeheartedly! :-)

I admire your work, Barbara, but I have to join with a couple of other posters in asking you: please don't use autism as a means of slamming someone. Some of us live with kids and have to convince them and all around them that it's nothing to be ashamed of. You wouldn't glibly call someone a spastic or a retard, and I hope autistic isn't simply the modern replacement for those insults.

She joins many libs in placing an all-powerful importance on the possession of a typical mind ... one that debates politics, thinks metaphorically, deftly navigates academic power struggles, etc.

The idea that there aren't well-spoken, even inspiring autistic speakers, is laughable. If she'd done her homework, she'd know that one of the common traits of Aspberger's individuals is articulate and persuasive, even dogmatic speech ... sound familiar?

I've become convinced lately that there are just as many non-compassionate, conformity-supporting, often ignorant libs as conservatives w/those tendencies.

"Vietnam? That lasted well longer than two presidential terms, as I recall. Maybe people weren't shooting during all of it, then?"

World War I -- 2 years. World War II -- 4 years
Korean War -- 3 years.
Vietnam War -- 7 years.
Iraq War -- estimate -- 6 years.

The US spent from 1945 to 1952 rebuilding the infrastructure and the governments of Germany and Japan following the end of the shooting war.

You can estimate the the duration of the Cold War at more than 30 years. Given that the neither the US nor the Soviet Union fired shots directly at each other, it was an extraordinarily expensive standoff for all those decades.

Meanwhile, 55 years after the end of the Korean War we still have 40,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea.

You inquired:

"Well, let's see...so far the ratio of dead whose individual roles we don't know to dead "nasty players" is about a million to...how many? A few thousand perhaps? Not to mention 4 million or so internally or externally displaced."

Check your numbers and ratios. That aside, it's pretty simple, really. If those muslims had not attacked us on 9/11 the US would not have gone into the middle east.

The bad muslims caused a lot of problems for a lot of other muslims. That means the muslim governments of the middle east should recognize the risk of letting murderers and terrorists run loose around the world and do something about it before they find themselves bombed into smithereens.

In case you didn't know, the US is achieving more and more of its combat goals in Iraq. You should know this is true. The absoulute silence among Democrats on the topic tells you all you need to know.

You observed:

"It's now going on five years since "Mission Accomplished." How many more nasty players have to go, with attendant "collateral damage" and our national debt piling up, before the prosperity starts to kick in?"

Iraq, at fill tilt can pump 6 million barrels a day. At current prices that's well over $500 million a day. Over $180 billion a year. That's enough to stimulate a lot of economic activity in Iraq.

You cracked:

"(Other than for Haliburton and Blackwater and their ilk,that is.)"

First, I doubt you know what Halliburton does, or where it operates. Second, Blackwater employs former US military personnel. No rookies. What's the problem with paying a mercenary force to fight and die? It's an old practice.

You wondered:

"I take it, then, you plan to stay home on November 3. I approve wholeheartedly!"

Not a chance. As a registered Democrat, I voted for Obama in the NY primary. But that was my single-handed effort to undermine Hillary's success.

Whether Hillary or Obama is nominated, the Dem will win all the NY electoral votes. But, as you will see, we are not about to elect either a woman or a black to the presidency this year. The two Dem front-runners haven't got what it takes.

Its shocking, I mean amazing to me, how adult Americans so want another yet newer Monarchal Cesar to put up on the chopping block, knowing full well after the honeymoon is over we will dissect and spit him or her out just like they did to Johnson,Nixon,Carter,Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton 1, and Bush 2. Why do you people so need a king? Nobody can save you but yourselves. The American government has gotten so big and so in the pockets of corporate America with some special interest icing its not even slightly funny. This government now exists simply to serve its own interests which is to keep the upper business class and a few evangelicals in power. There really isn't much else going on here. Breaking the race or sex barrier is meaningless as it will still "only" truely serve the interests that control it right now today. The window dressing will be all that is different. The Bush wreaking crew will be gone but in its place will come another gang of seven who will either play ball or quickly be put out of power either directly or through being marginalized into one more failed laughing stock of an administration. The very fact that "the system" has already brainwashed the entire country into accepting one of three people in the running as their next president this early in the race is mind numbing. So which of the three, Hillary, Barak, or John going to be the one to miraculously solve all the problems and make you all happy about all the accumulated excesses and mess of the past thirty years? Its nuts. These are three slightly better than average people, hard driven, ambitious, narcissistic, grandiose, "players" vying for "the machines" annointment to be the next American king on this rapidly evolving globe. The media has created a great money making industry I must say. Yet still our "actual" currently existing government is completely paralyzed except to continuing to prosecute the multi-wars we are in spanning the globe. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, lebanon, turkey, terror-europe,somalia, sudan,nigeria, kenya,venezuela, bolivia, cuba, georgia, etc, whether full blown official brigades on the ground or black ops, mercenary surrogates, or money in play we are in more wars than any of us have fingers and toes. That seems about the only thing we as a nation are being allowed to do. Its not not even a republican or democrat thing, just a matter of degree depending on which pony is in the block. What you think Wallstreet, goldman sachs,halliburton, exxon-mobil, bank of america, etc, are just going to go away when they are our bones and liver and spleen? Yes they provide "some" jobs in a shrinking "good job" base. We all know that. (These are the same companys that pay for so much of the media's bread and butter advertising and have so much presence in editorial suites). Maybe it is impossible to revision the economy, though it might be possible to regulate its excesses(subprime credit cancer anyone?) But why do we embrace this fantasy sold by the media financed through business that our country of 300 million people has been led by the nose into believing they have winnowed the candidate list down to three somewhat better than average people to be their next president-king? We are talking about succession of rule of the biggest empire ever on the planet and we have only Hillary, Barak, and John to pick from? And we use dog and pony handshake and name calling shows as our measuring stick? Its not even worthy of adult thinking its so junior highschool a popularity contest. This admiration some feel for one candidate or another really has less to do with the candidate than it has to do about themselves. I wish, as American adults we could grow some insight into just what we are doing to ourselves, as we are the nation, not these three pre-chosen candidates. This is a democracy? This is insanity. And we are going to put the nuclear football in the hands of one of these three people.

Here's a little humor for you. So you want to put the nuclear football in the hands of:
a. candidate with post traumatic stress disorder from being abused for years in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp
b. guy who worked in the housing projects who use to party hardy in the old days.
c. women who's husband was Bill Clinton who pushes people's wrong buttons and in her latest incarnation is carpet bagging from New York.

Sour Grapes: 'I admire your work, Barbara, but I have to join with a couple of other posters in asking you: please don't use autism as a means of slamming someone. ...'

Likewise, I guess we should not say something like "George W. Bush, _deaf_ to the opinions of most world leaders and many of his own citizens, _blindly_ embarked on an ill-advised adventure in Iraq...." and so on. Well, maybe you're right; it is certainly insulting to the literally blind and deaf to be associated with George W. Bush. I guess we will have to turn all our metaphors over to the right-wingers. However, our prose will definitely be crip... whoops.

This doesn't affect people unless they are traveling outside the country or employed in some segments of the importing business. ...'

I beg to disagree. Before I got laid off, I was a gold bug. Still am, because I have at least a few bullion coins left over from more prosperous times in the year 2000. If and when I get hired again, I will still be buying more gold, regardless of price, as a hedge against inflation and layoffs.

A lot of people do not understand that gold is the definition of constant, inflation proof money.

Gold will buy the same goods and services now which it always has in the past. A tenth of an ounce will always buy the same bag of groceries, twenty ounces will always buy a decent car.

In contrast, the greenback is worth only a third against gold now versus what it was worth in the year 2000. I knew back then that what Bush was doing was creating awful fundamentals, and I see today that my judgement is vindicated.

Since Nixon Gold has keep value with inflation while the dollar has dropped like a stone. But that is all. It doesn't have the growth characteristic of a "good" stock which means one going up at the traditional smoothed average of 10-11 percent over time. Subtract from that an annual inflation rate of 4-5 percent(government almost useless figures) and you have a good 5-6 percent grower. But, but but but, with the advent of the creative wall street subprime pyramid scheme housing prices have inflated far faster than 5 percent a year, but more like 7.5 and in places like California even higher. Add to that the real price inflation of 13 plus percent in Health Care, and other high areas such as food, energy, and education and you have a more truer average of, well nobody knows, but perhaps 6-9 percent. That means a good stock has only increased a percent or two faster than real inflation, or 1-2 percent slower than gold. Interesting, isn't it? Add into that the risk involved in owning a stock and unless you have a sure winner or IPO shares or leverage you are likely to lose as much as win. Now if you game that risk by owning a diversified portfolio or say index mutual fund you will have to periodically pay taxes. So your example of a 3.7% dividend means, depending on your tax rate, you will earn only 2 something percent or less than a third our real inflation rate assuming the very best scenario for you. Stocks only really work for the big boys sadly, or for a ten year unique period as the 1990's with the tech boom you would have done well for a rare change assuming you sold out before the tech crash when many stocks dropped 40 percent, and some 80 percent, or worse(Enron, world com, etc). So what to do, what to do. Well the Roth Ira isn't taxable(currently) so it is a good retirement savings vehicle, but much of what you put in it will at best match inflation once again. It use to be bonds or bond funds would match inflation but currently they are dropping like stones also due to the subprime/siv/spreading cancer like fixed income contagion of everything. My point is there is no certainty, especially where there is no government financial industry real regulation that provides both transparency and integrity. The biggest banks(Bank of America) and biggest brokerages(Merrill Lynch) and biggest hybrids(Citicorp) heavily invested and pushed the siv/cdo/and all that toxic paper and are still in the process of taking heavy write downs, letting go some ceo's and staff while many Americans are left holding their useless paper. Even the banks won't lend to each other currently or buy each others products. Worse, corporations that hold credit lines with these banks can't access them for short term necessary business reasons(like buying inventory, paying vendors, paying loans owed) and yet even worse municipalities that hold muni bonds are finding their borrowing rates suddenly as high as 20% like the New York Port Authority. I am not eggagerating, you can verify all this with some heavy research on readily available business news outlets. How can this be you say? Well the same tiny three muni bond insurers that guaranteed payement of principle of defaulted bonds(for a price) creatively started insuring corporate bonds when the going was good. Well now their AAA ratings are no longer valid and if they are downgraded by our friends the rating agencies that said junk siv's were AAA which they weren't all the muni bonds in their portfolios have to be downgraded, effectively losing value, so no big bank or brokerage wants to buy them right now. The entire credit system is completely vulnerable like never before, and in the beginnings of the great depression that is why there was a run on banks as people were worried they wouldn't be able to get their money. Well right now banks are worried they may not be able to get their money. This has already spread into "some" leveraged and "creative" money market funds, though not the ones most people have-yet. Its likely big banks and brokers will make good on thier quality money market funds as long as it makes sense for them, but as the news drips drips drips out its all getting shakey. Obviously, people should consult with their paid investment advisors about what to do if anything. But either way, we have an ongoin freeze up of our financial system and even many stocks are prisoner to what happens in the bond market. Why? Well beside the fears of bad things happening, most, or say all, corporations have a variety of bonds for financing they must pay dividends on, redeem, hedge, etc that stronly affect thier balance sheets, earnings, and even their ability to do business. Its not as easy as just writing off a few bad loans or a lot of bad loans, the problem is far more serious than that. And the Bush administration has been totally asleep at the switch or worse, belives as some have said an Ayan Randian view that let the fitest survive. Its absolutely horrible, and a recession will only make it harder for everyone to pay their debts further devaluing debt in general of which bonds and stocks are mired in. A recession like this could go into a depression, though some feel globalization will save us as not all economies are linked in lock step. But aren't they? The general media has not caught onto this story, but the financial media is starting too, and last weeks platinum prices soared to a twice its value of 20 years ago. Now the people who sold this new era of financial instruments got paid huge bonuses and the executives got huge golden parachutes. That is where ceo's who got paid in the hundreds of millions of dollars in severance pay got their money besides downsizing, offshoring, and cutting costs. That is where so many companys capitalization suddenly doubled and tripled in the past decade. That is why your house has doubled and tripled in the last 15 years. It wasn't some magic of the market. It was the cooking of the market by some very creative folks, and now houses are in a deflationary spiral till they find their natural price, probably what they are really worth. So people's recently only appreciated asset is going to fall as their ability to pay the mortgage for it becomes far more taxing, and in some cases impossible. Yet the big boys who walked off with all the money get to keep their bonuses, their three houses, they yaught, their fancy vacations, and their mistresses. Its truely, truely, a tragedy and miscarriage of the power of a leveraged economy where the average citizen somehow thought they were an equal participant with. It makes me shudder. And our government is doing almost nothing about it but throwing up its hands and going off on a tour of Africa promising those poor natives some free money and new "partnerships" on our dime. People don't even get it. And that says a lot about our media's inability to inform. Instead everyone's nose is pointed to American Idol, the hillary, john, and barak show and told they are wantonly obese as a nation. Meanwhile the wars on the world and our people(the war on drugs) is relentlessly waved, Cops TV and Lockup are endlessly aired on nightly TV and people are getting divorced in droves while their kids are getting fleeced by college tuitions. And oh, health care, ugh! Oh and GM is laying off its American hourly workforce in total. I think there is a structural problem here and the countrys head is in the sands of Iraq and twenty other countries, too many to mention.

I found myself agreeing with Chris and it was quite disconcerting. :) But then he got back into his old self and I could totally disagree, so the world righted itself. Whew! :)

I would love to believe in Obama, but when I try to see him representing me to the world, I just can't see it. And, maybe I'm old and jaded and senile to boot, but I am so sick of standing back while 'men' conduct government. They have made such a mess of it. I don't want women who are acting like men running the world. I want true females who know who they are, what they are, what they want, and how to get it. And I don't want a woman who has fallen prey to the man's disease of greed and profit mongering. I want to see some realism, rational thought, something besides calculations based upon profit or loss or politics. I don't see how a woman could do any worse than George Bush or even Ronald Reagan. I still mourn the education for all that Reagan took from the middle class....

People compare Obama to JFK. Yet JFK was from a family of movers and shakers, he'd been trained on a world stage, groomed his whole life for the presidency, taught and molded, he dined with heads of state in their little Kennedy compound. Obama is naive and wet behind the ears in comparison. He is no John F. Kennedy. And he is no savior. He is a man who can talk the talk, and after eight years of a man who couldn't rub two words together, it is refreshing. But it is NOT enough to base electing him leader of the United States of America. His record is pretty much a secret. Our media has not vetted this guy. And the media is part of the problem. Isn't it looking more and more like that? The media is not in tune with the people at all on this election.

I certainly hope Obama is no Kennedy. Kennedy brought us the war in Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban missle crisis, and very little else besides the pseudo-intellectual glitz of "Camelot" and some salacious tales about Marilyn Monroe, Judith Exner, and many others. Not a difference of substance, perhaps, but certainly an unpleasant style I could do without.

I believe that Kennedy, like whomever our next president is, inherited much of what you listed -- Vietnam, Cold War, etc. Yes, the Bay of Pigs was not his shining hour, yet out of his presidency we found a better way: civil rights, Peace Corps, economic growth, trade, a much more respected standing in the world, a better communication with the world, a more global view of the world, and the space race. And yes, there was Camelot. :)A first lady who was more than 'the little lady.'

If I don't know more than that, maybe it means they're not getting their money's worth from their PR budget.

"What's the problem with paying a mercenary force to fight and die? It's an old practice."

Yup. An old practice of imperial powers fighting wars of empire:

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

Today, Blackwater's thugs (including not just Americans but veterans of torture regimes in places like Chile, Argentia and South Africa) massacre Iraqi civilians with impunity while its corporate honchos make out beyond the wildest dreams of George III's Hessians.

These are wars of empire, not of national defense. We're fighting them because it's good for US corporate interests, not our true national interest. I won't stay home on election day either but I'm not looking for that dove of peace anytime soon even if the Democrats win.

The Kennedys did not start, and were not very friendly to the Civil Rights movement. Bobby Kennedy in particular worked for and with J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy, and approved the wiretaps of Martin Luther King (because he was supposed to be a "Communist"). In true ruling-class style, they gave lip service to Civil Rights while doing what they could to undercut and deflect the movement. When its political force became irresistible, they put themselves in front of the people who had actually made the sacrifices and fought the fight. I don't find their role admirable in any way, although I do acknowledge its cunning.

chickenshit, with respect to the duration of the wars I mentioned, I referred to US involvement, not the absolute starts and finishes.

As for Vietnam, well, here's the order of things. Despite our "advisory role" that led Kennedy to create the Green Berets, the start of the War is roughly March 1965, when the Marine Corps arrived in Da Nang.

All combat patrols ended about June, 1972, though a more formal end occurred in early 1973. Your timetable ends with the last helicopter out of Saigon in 1975, which was well past the end of our War efforts.

Hence, the Vietnam War lasted 7 years.

As for Halliburton, if you're getting your information about the company from groups such as Halliburton Watch, well, you're getting a lot of worthless information. Meanwhile, Halliburton and KBR are two separate companies.

As far as your belief that employing mecenaries is the practice of empire-builders, what of it?

I think we both know more empires were expanded with homegrown conscripted troops rather than eager mercenaries.

Anyway, since the US is not building an empire, your claim is irrelevant.

The US is attempting one of the most ambitious projects in human history -- turning the muslim middle east from a social, economic and religious backwater into a modern and up-to-date region in today's world.

That's the opposite of empire building. The US goal is intended to benefit the world, with the US fronting the cost of the regional upgrade. After that, everybody wins.

So now according to the Drudge Report, women are fainting in droves at Obama's rallies, particularly when Oprah, the entertainer-in-chief, is there. Lovely!

I've pretty much accepted that we won't see a female president in our lifetimes. It turns out that among the 50.7% of us who make up this society, there isn't one mediocre enough female candidate to compare w/the men. Lol.

chris '... Anyway, since the US is not building an empire, your claim is irrelevant. The US is attempting one of the most ambitious projects in human history -- turning the muslim middle east from a social, economic and religious backwater into a modern and up-to-date region in today's world. That's the opposite of empire building. The US goal is intended to benefit the world, with the US fronting the cost of the regional upgrade. After that, everybody wins.'

So the United States, or actually the ruling class of the United States, a community comprising 6% of the Earth's population, shall decide on its own what other communities are satisfactory or unsatisfactory and smash such of the latter as it pleases.

If that's not imperialism, I don't know what is.

And that, I think, is the major political and moral problem in the United States. The country, as a state, has put on the Kaiser's "mailed fist" but keeps denying what is obvious to everyone else. At least the old-time imperialists -- the British, the French, the Germans, and so on, were honest with each other about what they were up to: the use of force to subjugate others to their liking and benefit.

Well, every other country that has gone the imperial route has been wrecked. I guess we'll see what happens in this case because the famous ignorance and exceptionalism of Americans is still holding fast. Those presidential candidates who wanted to question the imperial project failed to get any significant interest. The sleepers tossed a little in their sleep, but they did not awaken.

"...turning the muslim middle east from a social, economic and religious backwater into a modern and up-to-date region in today's world."

Too bad Flatbush doesn't have any oil. It too could be eligible for upgrading, once the bad people have been eliminated. I know that doesn't include chris, and we'd take every reasonable measure to minimize collateral damage. :-)

"Too bad Flatbush doesn't have any oil. It too could be eligible for upgrading, once the bad people have been eliminated."

A decade ago, there were a lot of bad characters in Flatbush. Fortunately, a lot of them were sent to prison or they moved out of town. They left Flatbush because the police got much tougher and because law-abiding people began expanding the boundaries of decent neighborhoods.

In other words, we had an occupying army here in Flatbush, and the army did great work. It's still doing great work.

Actually there is a huge economic rennaisance in the gulf states of the middle east today, and the beginnings finally of real economic growth in africa. In fact they are global players and buying up pieces of great American companys on the cheap. They are methodically accumulating what we can no longer afford in this country and have long range plans to keep doing so. While you may focus on flatbush and the vietnamn of fourty years ago, the rest of the world is moving onwards into the new millenia. We need to seriously re-examine our myopic self absorbtion and get busy creating green industries that are exportable, new types of technologies, and tackle the impending energy and oil shortages that will occur in our lifetime. If we want to be self absorbed then lets get busy rebuilding our burnt out decrepit infrastructure. Lets make our engineering and science schools tuition less expensive so we can graduate more useful students who can build something real. Lets subsidize our trade schools to teach some of the old trade skills, and lets have a federal parks program to get more of our young people working in the parks instead of wasting away in the wallmarts of the world. We need to do a deep steam cleaning of our skill base deep into our entire population. From this a whole new generation of high value added infrastructure and technologies will arise. Flatbush offers nothing to the future of our country unless you mean to just make it barely liveable. It is not an engine of growth. We have repeopled much of our country in the past four decades, but what we need now is to reskill and retool the population base. This is a big project and needs to be done to make us truly competitive once again with other developing nations. We are de-evolving much like the band sang in the seventies and we need to revigour. Flatbush and vietnamn have had their day, and so will iraq in the next decade. Now we must launch face foward and improvise a better future that is structurally dynamic, and not simply politically correct as the main criteria. This goes beyond any of the isms of today, but prefaces the creation of a real tomorrow. The day we start doing this is the day our currency stops falling. Right now the ratio of first year law students to each first year engineering student is 100/1. What does that say about our priorities? We have it all bass backwards.

I think you Yanks need to elect a president that will restore your place and standing in the world. Right now, your WAR on Terrorism and against the EvilDoers has just about bankrupted your country and the prospects don't look all too rosy.Heck even Canadians are living a much better quality of life. We are even in the envious position as having the upper hand in many matters including how much water and power we throw your way. We just might be the only country that is not kicking you too hard although you certainly deserve it.

And aside, with Bush out of office, your government can start repaying the hundreds of billions it owes other countries and maybe this will help with your global standing.
Boy did you ever mess up with electing Shrub Bush twice. What were you thinking? Let's hope the common sense factor kicks in for this election.

chris: '...a chief reason India is leading the rise toward prosperity in its portion of the world can be traced to the British educational system that remained in place after the English departed. ...'

I guess this is why Nigeria, Kenya and Burma are such paradises.

But, anyway, no one is imparting the wonders of the British school system to the Iraqis or anyone else in the Middle East. Britain is a backwater, unable to decide whether it should be a satellite of the US or Europe. That's what happens to imperial powers: they go physically, monetarily, and morally broke, while they're bringing all those supposed benefits to the lesser nations and inferior races.

That's what has already begun happening to the United States. That's why Americans now accept terror, torture, unprovoked war, a debased currency, a ruling class of cowards and poltroons, and the loss of their rights as good policy.

I am glad to see you Americans purportedly paying attention to the candidates this time around.

Cause I know most of you weren't the last time, or the time before....

Lastly, most of us Canadians are pulling for Obama. He looks like he can do the job effectively and we don't much take color into thr equation. Hillary would just amount to another disastrous 4 year term, so we think you are on the right recovery track.

Now you've raised a point about the intractible nature of problems intrinsic to black cultures around the world.

There is simply no black nation on the globe that is part of the modern world. The failure of blacks to establish and build prosperous nations is universal. Kenya and Nigeria were miserable places before the British arrived. They did not make things worse. The rest of the world merely learned how bad things were.

Obama might become the Democratic candidate. But he will not win the presidency. His wife's recent comments about her lifelong lack of pride in America is only one of several issues that will sink Obama's campaign against McCain.

You said:

"He looks like he can do the job effectively and we don't much take color into thr equation."

Larry, you doofus, you don't take color into the equation because there are no blacks in Canada. Or, to be accurate, about 1% of the population is black. Have you ever seen a black person other than on TV?

Are there any black politicians in Canada? If yes, what offices do they hold? How about high-ranking businessmen? Any blacks there?

Obama has no experience at anything that matters. However, he is connected to a black supremacist preacher and also linked to Louis Farrakhan. And he's been photographed with Al Sharpton.

Perhaps worse than all that is his middle name: Hussein.

It is way too obvious that he has ties to fringe elements of US society that a vast majority of voters oppose.

The primaries draw only a low percentage of registered voters. IN states that hold caucuses, only about 1% of registered voters participate.

This presidential election may see a record turn-out, which means close to 60% of registered voters.

chris: '...Now you've raised a point about the intractible nature of problems intrinsic to black cultures around the world. ...'

Burma isn't Black.

I was just pointing out that British imperialism and the British educational system don't seem to be the deciding factor in post-imperial prosperity.

In the case of India, it might have something to do with the fact that India was a civilized country when the British were running around painting themselves blue and beating each other over the head with tree branches.

You know what Gandhi said when someone asked him what he thought of Western Civilization, don't you?

anarcissie, nations populated by uneducated masses are easy targets for leaders who know how to acquire and manage power.

Sub-Sahara Africa was nothing but primitive tribes living at the edge of nature when the Europeans arrived, and much of the continent remained a recalcitrant backwater till the Europeans left.

Anyway, nations deep into poverty and ignorance are always great starting points for demagogues and tyrants. It's not a requirement for tyranny that it arise in black populations. It's just common.

As for the British being more primitive than the Indians as some point in the distant past, so what?

The only point you make with that observation is to show how quickly the Brits advanced and sped past the rest of the world.

India may have had something that is described as a culture, but I think it boiled down to the dominance that Hinduism had over life. Lucky for them. It was better to be Hindu than muslim, since islam strives to reject knowledge even today. And huge numbers of African blacks are still worshipping trees and rocks and animals.

" It's curious that you (and they) don't appear to consider that there may be a difference between the opportunities made available to an older woman and a young man, especially a White young man. "

interesting that you assume that i cannot fathom that there would be inequality of earning potential between a middle age female and a younger male in competitive, extractive capitalism. in fact i found the link for the christian science monitor article at alas embedded in a forum discussing white privilege.

that a middle age woman would lack capacity to earn as much as a young man is also reflected in the heavy work and light work rations cards which were distributed by socialist countries during the last century the most convenient example being east germany. this practice is apparently allowable when building socialism.

" Baines told officers he was moving to Las Vegas and forgot the cutter was in the book.
Officers found books in the backpack titled "Muhammad in the Bible," "The Prophet's Prayer" and "The Noble Qur'an." He also had a copy of the Quran and the Bible. "

chris (to anarcissie): "As for the British being more primitive than the Indians as some point in the distant past, so what? The only point you make with that observation is to show how quickly the Brits advanced and sped past the rest of the world."

Well then, perhaps Obama's share in the same elite heritage as Dick Cheney's will lift him up to excel in the presidency despite his supposed lack of experience. :-)

chickenshit, first, Obama has not got a chance to reach the presidency.

One reason is the total impossibility of the programs he espouses. His political rhetoric -- his positions on the serious questions -- is unworkable and unachievable. That's got nothing to do with his race.

Meanwhile, he's lulling and seducing the crowds with his voice. He's got a voice made for the stage.

Meanwhile, he has offerred nothing useful to solve or reduce the real issues of the social pathologies that afflict too much of black America.

If he were a truly bold politician aiming to move the country forward, he'd support decriminalization of today's illicit drugs.

We have a criminal justice catastrophe and a social nightmare due to our foolish and punitive drug laws.

Of course one result of decriminalization -- not legalization -- is more deaths from overdoses. But we have a big medical/social problem on our hands. Not a criminal problem. I believe our society would tolerate an increase in fatal overdoses if we no longer imprisoned users.

Decriminalization would probably sink the economy of Colombia, and sharply cut the flow of laundered money through Panama, but who cares?

Anyway, Obama, by steering clear of a real issue like this one, shows he is just another craven politician.

If he truly advocated "change" he'd fight to change our self-destructive drug laws. However, based on comments so far, he's shown that he's a captive of various groups, like the Teachers' Union, to whom he pandered by saying that we must put much much more money into public schools.

chris: I agree with you that if Obama were a truly bold politician, etc., he would promise to call off the Drug War and decriminalize recreational drugs. However, Obama is not a truly bold politician; this is why he has gotten as far as he has. Only a very few people vote on issues in a rational way, but a large number of voters vote on appearance, suggestion and rumor. If Obama were to adopt a radical stance on drugs it would be associated with his self-acknowledged youthful drug use, and then, besides being besmirched by his opposition as a Muslim. a defeatist, and a man without policy, he would also be a druggie.

In any case, I am told that Obama's web site is full of policies, often more detailed and reasoned-out policies than Clinton's. So what? If there is anything it is easy to get, it is policies; just turn the tap, and millions will hasten to fill your bucket.

This Obama-has-no-policies stuff is a crock, or very possibly a trap set by Obama's handlers.

anarcissie, I have reviewed all the policy stuff Obama has made available.

Every plan begins with words like "increase, develop, create," and so on. The translation of those words is: SPEND.

Worse, most are open-ended programs in which expenditures would not just increase, but balloon.

He wants to throw money at public education. He wants to throw more than the entire wealth of the nation into Universal Government Healthcare.

He's endowed with a genius for devising plans to spend trillions of dollars on projects certain to fail, as which point the solution to the failure will include the request for MORE money.

He's a hack. I know drug decriminalization is a third-rail of politics. But without that kind of thinking on the table, he's just another candidate with nothing but a little charm.

He'll lose in a landslide. His supporters will be stunned. In November 2004 Dems bubbled with hope late into the night after the polls closed. None wanted to acknowledge that Kerry was a goner well before the nation hit the polls.

But after the election, probably six months later, maybe less, my devoted Dem friends finally admitted that Kerry was a stiff and they really never cared for him or his social climbing wife.

The post-mortems on Obama will be just as revealing. Yeah, they'll say, good guy, great speaking voice, but yeah, he really didn't have enough experience to be president, and, to be honest, it's a relief he lost. And his wife? Can you imagine her out on the front lawn of the White House yelling at the neighbors?

While I am not sure of the actual percentage of "black" people who make up Canada's population, I do know more areas of the country are more colorful than others. Greater Toronto, the 4 th largest city in North America is racially very diverse, with about 40% of the population born outside the country.

As for how many blacks hold office, not sure although the Governor General is a black female originally from Haiti.

Lastly, a quick question from my wife.She has been reading some of your responses here and has come to some conclusions about you. Can you confirm them ? First, someone with such a dour outlook on life most likely is the lonliest guy in Red Hook Brooklyn. Please confirm .
Second, all this repression and anger you dispense is a surefire sign you have not have sexual relations in several years and is making you into a tyrant. Please confirm.

chris: 'I have reviewed all the policy stuff Obama has made available. Every plan begins with words like "increase, develop, create," and so on. The translation of those words is: SPEND. Worse, most are open-ended programs in which expenditures would not just increase, but balloon. He wants to throw money at public education. He wants to throw more than the entire wealth of the nation into Universal Government Healthcare. ...'

Right. That's what government policy is, mostly: throwing money. You can throw it at Iraq (or Afghanistan or Somalia or Serbia, etc. etc.) in the form of troops and tanks and guns and bombs, or you can throw it at domestic programs and help middle-class bureaucrats and landlords buy bigger SUVs. McCain and Clinton, being supporters of Bush's very expensive military adventures, can hardly complain about anyone throwing money around.

But this is beside the point -- at least, it's beside _my_ point. Which, if you recall, was that Obama can always produce _policy_. It was a mistake for Clinton to focus on his lack of policy because he can have several truckloads of it delivered to his front lawn tomorrow morning. You (or his neighbors) may complain about its quality, but you will not be able to dispute its quantity.

chris: 'If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, the following bumper sticker will appear across the country: McCain. Not Hussein.'

me: " It's curious that you (and they) don't appear to consider that there may be a difference between the opportunities made available to an older woman and a young man, especially a White young man. "

roger: 'interesting that you assume that i cannot fathom that there would be inequality of earning potential between a middle age female and a younger male in competitive, extractive capitalism. in fact i found the link for the christian science monitor article at alas embedded in a forum discussing white privilege. ...'

Well, roger, you did post the quote in indirect response to Barbara's book, which describes the difficulties of making a modest living for the unprivileged and uncredentialed. The CSM and the young fellow who is the subject of the story also seemed to be responding to her book, and saying, "Hey, it isn't so bad out there after all," upon which my response followed, fairly relevantly, I think.

But maybe I didn't get your point. If it wasn't what I say above, what was it? Humor?

chickenshit: " I was going to ask you why his middle name would be fatal. Now I see it's because it'll rhyme with "McCain" on a bumper sticker. "

no its that the fine citizens of this great nation will confuse barack hussein with saddam hussein. be certain that the political opposition will not make any attempt to clear up the matter. it has come to mud slinging as political expression.

Still can't believe how all you people buy into this presidential campaign. Debating all the media launched talking points on three people out of 300 million, as if you have some special insight into who will make a better president. So you think this is what a democracy is? Its like three way football monday and you are all quarterbacks. You are being manipulated by powerful interests that have totally stacked the deck with pliable shills. As soon as they spend your energy picking one of these performers they go right back to running the show. Doesn't anybody get it yet?

Brian: "Still can't believe how all you people buy into this presidential campaign. Debating all the media launched talking points on three people out of 300 million, as if you have some special insight into who will make a better president."

As I said before, Obama was NOT my first choice and neither was Clinton. Since we're still faced with the duty to pick the least worst of the eventual nominees, why shouldn't we talk about them? If you have any insights beyond the media's talking points, I for one will be glad to consider them.

Brian: '... Still can't believe how all you people buy into this presidential campaign. ...'

Take it easy, Brian, it's just entertainment.

Changing the system for real would be a huge amount of work even if we all agreed that it needed to be changed and agreed generally on what needed to be done. At the moment, there is no agreement and no one is up to the work anyway. Not too long ago I put in four or five years on radical organizing, at least one day a week, and it was like beating my head against a wall. There is nothing less powerful than an idea whose time hasn't come yet. About all we can do is keep the ideas out there until the time does come.

As for administering the present system, you're right, no one knows what Obama, Clinton or McCain will do. They have loads of policies -- pick one from column A and two from column B. In any case your vote has an infinitesimal probability of affecting the outcome. So what's left?

Let us face a fact: there are less, and less, decent paying jobs in the world ecomomy and more people pursuing them worldwide. During the Clinton years the average wage of the jobs created was between $10-12. The debate over who is more victimized is a waste of time. The ship is sinking---and I feel really ripped off! I had dreams when I was young. Now I have delusions. Delusions that I just may get the American dream. But only two of my friends from high school have, so 'delusional' best describes my former dreams. They said on the Today Show there is an increase in the number of 'fortysomethings' committing suicide---gee I wonder why? No good jobs=no hope! Wow! what a concept!!!

" The debate over who is more victimized is a waste of time. The ship is sinking---and I feel really ripped off! I had dreams when I was young. "

ok i can see the frustration. let me ask the question however. is there any solace at all that opportunity for financial gain during employment and security in retirement is greater in the united states than in most other parts of the world. is it appropriate to compare the relative security and stability of the republic to the chaos of kenya and ethiopia. it is still possible to carve out modest success in this capitalist system. what we refer to as poverty in the united states would be viewed as a quite desirable standard of living in many parts of the world.

roger: "it is still possible to carve out modest success in this capitalist system."

There's that famous last word "still." If you're into ticking-bomb scenarios, you could call it a ticking bomb of a word.

No longer more than just "possible to carve out..."? And that other word "solace." In case you don't remember, it was an article of faith in American capitalism that your children's future would surpass your own. Now we're being tossed crumbs of "solace."

I believe, roger, you'll be telling us we're better off than the starving Kenyans and Ethiopians even when the average difference gets down to 50 calories per person per day.

I hear you on the "look beyond Obama" thing. Just this AM, on our version of Good Morning America, Canada AM had Paul Cellucci on . He was the former US Ambassador to Canada. He was campaigning for the Republicans saying Hillary or Obama would be a bad thing for Canada.
????? Did this clown do his research or look at any recent economic graphs?

Last I checked, our dollar was at a 30 yr high against your US peso and the economic reality is that we are living a much better quality of life and the US will continue to spiral down, if you don't fix some things real quick. Cellucci continues to feed at the Republican trough and thinks CDN's can be swayed to endorse a Republican administration.What a knob. I know why he only lasted a couple of years in Ottawa. He looked like a real jamoke this morning. Stooge.
Speaking of stooges, LC2 Chris refuses to engage me and for good reason. I know why he is the way he is.

I do not think he wants me to say anymore on the matter.

The dude must be one heck of guy to hang out with. I'll bet he doesn't have too many friends, except perhaps for some fellow Neo-Conservative agitators. Sounds like he might not be too goodlooking either.

roger: "it is still possible to carve out modest success in this capitalist system."

Modest indeed. For most of the population, a worse one than that of their parents or their parents' parents. And even the gentry are getting nervous.

The peculiar thing about all this decline and fall is that supposedly the GDP and worker productivity in the US have been steadily rising for many decades. If things are actually going down the tubes, either (1) we've been lied to; (2) someone's run off with the money; or (3) both.

At the moment I'm going with (3).

Can't say we couldn't see it coming though. The US has been running huge Federal budgetary and trade deficits, and the Federal Reserve Bank has been pursuing a monetary policy that is the equivalent of printing money by the bale. Now we have the "stimulus". As Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, said, "It's like giving a drink to an alcoholic."

certainly there are serious issues in the united states however i would suggest that the form of government and economic model found here provide for greater security and opportunity than is available in many parts of the world.

Barbsright said: "They said on the Today Show there is an increase in the number of 'fortysomethings' committing suicide---gee I wonder why? No good jobs=no hope! Wow! what a concept!!!"

Did the Today Show ever say why? You know, I'm one of those fortysomethings. I think for me it is easier to expect a better life than my parents... I'm unemployed and hence a male "housewife" to a schoolteacher who doesn't make more than $32,000 per year. But no matter how poor and jobless I am, my life is still better than my parents. I've stopped my mother from slashing her wrists while I was a teenager, and my brother did the same for my father. A few years later my sister jumped out a window and finished the job by hoarding her meds in the sanitarium. The morning I gathered up the courage to ask a pretty secretary out to dinner, was the same morning that everyone at work had discovered she stayed home and swallowed a shotgun. I have an ex-wife to turned out to be bipolar and asked me to take an overdose of pills with me.
Compared to all of this my life is one friggin cakewalk. Yes, I wish I was employed so I could feel useful and so I could feel like I was doing my share for my family's prosperity and for my daughter's future. But I'd rather have love without money than money without love, and maybe, for now, that's enough.

" The US has been running huge Federal budgetary and trade deficits, and the Federal Reserve Bank has been pursuing a monetary policy that is the equivalent of printing money by the bale. "

yes. on the other hand the populous wants cradle to grave safekeeping (medicare, medicaid, social security, ssi, social security disability) and the military has a voracious appetite. to say nothing of farm subsidies.

the middle class is the segment of the population which pays for all this.

Don't you get it? It's not the military per se; it's MILITARISM. More and more, the business of America is war.

Yes, the Pentagon will generally say it needs more resources to do this or that job, but it's our growing penchant for military action as the preferred way to deal with our self-created problems that's doing us in. Militarism was crushing us even before 9/11 and Afghanistan and Iraq.

McCain is a thoroughgoing militarist. The costs of our militarism, both monetary and social, will only get worse under McCain. Obama talks nicer, but will his walk be anything but a less accentuated goose step? I dunno.

no not at all. my point should be obvious. citizens of the united states will not be in the circumstances which kenyans find themselves because the american political and economic systems while flawed and unjust will not allow for widespread tragedy and horror as seen in these times in kenya, ethiopia, and the genocide of 1994 in rwanda. to say nothing of stalins workers paradise as seen in the moscow trials of 1936 and 1937. this extends to political stability, food security and physical safety. the flawed and unjust system is simply much more stable.